The solution is more democracy

4 8 April 2017

HATEVER ELSE it is, Trump’s chaotic post-

truth presidency is a gift for

psychologists. Under their code of ethics,

psychologists are not allowed to make

pronouncements about the mental

health of public ﬁgures. Despite this rule, thousands of

psychotherapists in the U.S. have come together in Citi-

zen Therapists Against Trumpism to warn about Trump’s

dubious mental health: “The public rhetoric of Trump-

ism normalizes what therapists work against in our

work: the tendency to blame others in our lives for our

personal fears and insecurities and then battle these

others instead of taking the healthier but more difﬁcult

path of self-awareness and self-responsibility. It also

normalizes a kind of hyper-masculinity that is antitheti-

cal to the examined life and healthy relationships that

psychotherapy helps people achieve. Simply stated,

Trumpism is inconsistent with emotionally healthy

living—and we have to say so publicly”. Psychology pro-

fessors from top US universities have also broken ranks

to voice their clinical opinion that Trump suffers from a

dangerous mental disorder. The psychologists Steven J

Rubenzer and Thomas R Faschingbauer, in conjunction

with about 120 historians and other experts, have rated

all the former US presidents, going back to George Wash-

ington, on ﬁve personality traits. George W Bush comes

out as especially high on extroversion and low on open

ness to experience—a highly enthusiastic and outgoing

social actor who tends to be incurious and intellectually

rigid. Barack Obama is relatively introverted, at least for

a politician, and almost preternaturally low on neuroti-

cism - emotionally calm and dispassionate, perhaps to

a fault. Across his lifetime, Donald Trump has exhibited

a trait proﬁle that you would not expect of a US presi-

dent: according to Dan P McAdams writing in the Atlantic

Magazine, sky-high extroversion combined with off-the-

chart low agreeableness.

Trump, of course, is not the only potentially dangerous

leader currently proving popular with voters. Across the

West conﬁdence in democracy has plummeted and the

attraction of authoritarian rulers has soared. One in six

Americans, for example, now think it would be a good

idea for the army to rule – up from one in sixteen in 1995.

As the UK careens towards destination unknown, cour-

tesy of a hard Brexit, defenders of European democracy

have been desperately counting on French voters to

reject Marie Le Pen and save the European Union, or at

least the Euro, from disintegration.

Widespread cynicism towards experts has famously

accompanied this populist authoritarian turn. But if there

is one set of experts that we should be listening to it is

psychologists since they can offer a better understand

ing of the chaos that is currently enveloping us, and point

the way back to sanity.

by Ian Hughes

Eliminate the toxic triangle: a dangerous

leader, a critical mass of susceptible

followers, and a conducive environment

The solution is

more democracy

OPINION

Trump’s dangerous populism is

profoundly undemocratic, even

if it commands the support of

the majority - because it violates

other pillars of democracy – the

rule of law, protection for human

rights for all, freedom of the

press, and the Constitution

April 2017 4 9

Democracy as Defence against

Pathology

Democracy, the worst form of government,

except for all the others, is a system of defences

designed to protect us from psychologically dan-

gerous leaders, and from one another. To

understand this, we need to recognise that

democracy is much more than the holding of

elections. In fact, as Brexit and Trump are clearly

demonstrating, elections without the rest of the

safeguards that make up the liberal democratic

system are a hazardous basis for governance.

It is useful to consider free and fair elections

as just one of seven core pillars of democracy.

The others are the rule of law which applies

equally to all, a constitution to which rulers must

abide, a prohibition on the state from imposing

a single ideology (including religious ideology)

on citizens, taxation and redistribution to pro-

tect citizens from destitution, protection for

individual human rights, and sharing of sover-

eignty to ensure that fundamental rights are

upheld. All seven pillars acting together may be

seen as constituting our modern system of lib

eral democracy.

The ways in which these pillars curtail the

power of rulers is now being demonstrated in the

US in the legal challenges to Trump’s Muslim Ban

and to his Executive Orders reversing legislation

designed to tackle global warming. In these

cases, the courts and the Constitution are serv-

ing as a check on unfettered Presidential power.

Were Trump to attempt to introduce the Muslim

protections for individual rights and the Consti

tutional prohibition on discriminating against

citizens on the basis of religious belief would

similarly limit his actions.

Democratic and Undemocratic

Populism

Democratic systems do not only protect us

against dangerous individuals. They have also

been designed to protect against the dangerous

form of populism that has resulted in Trumpism

and Brexit and that is threatening Europe in the

form of Marie Le Pen, Victor Orban, Geert Wil-

ders, Vladimir Putin and others.

Populism occurs when a majority of citizens

feel that none of the political parties that are

supposed to represent them are in fact doing so.

In such a situation, public conﬁdence in politi-

cians may evaporate and a populist movement

arise demanding that citizens’ interests be rep

resented once again. This positive form of

populism is the very basis of democracy. It is the

means by which society can ensure that demo-

cratically elected politicians perform the

function for which they are elected. The populist

movements we see in the US and Europe today

have arisen precisely because many elected pol-

iticians have failed to represent the interests of

large swathes of their electorates. The Financial

Crisis of 2008 imperilled democracy as many

governments were seen to bail out ﬁnancial

institutions and allow those at the helm of the

ﬁnancial institutions who created the crisis to

walk away with their fortunes intact - only to

impose the consequences on citizens through

austerity programmes that ruined the lives of

many. That populism should be society’s

response to such a situation is not only unsur-

prising, it is essential if functional democracy is

to be restored.

Unfortunately, however, instead of positive

populist movements demanding the strengthen-

ing of democratic control and a more equitable

economy and society, a dangerous form of pop

ulism has taken hold. This dangerous populism

shares positive populism’s roots in citizen dis

enchantment and anger at politicians who have

failed to deliver on democracy’s promises. But it

differs from positive populism in one crucial

respect. Dangerous populism diagnoses the

roots of our current problems not in unjust eco-

nomic, social and political systems, but as being

the fault of enemies – foreigners, Muslims, Mexi-

cans – who must be removed if the good old days

are to be restored.

This dangerous populism, of which Trump is

the most powerful advocate, is profoundly

undemocratic, even if it commands the support

of the majority of the population. It is undemo

cratic because it violates the other fundamental

pillars of the liberal democratic system – the rule

of law, protection for human rights for all, free-

dom of the press, and the Constitution.

Dangerous Populism and the

Toxic Triangle

It takes more than a single charismatic populist

leader, of course, to make up a dangerous popu-

list movement. Dangerous leaders are simply the

most visible manifestations of a much wider

malaise. Political scientists use the phrase ‘the

toxic triangle’ to describe the conﬂation of ele

ments which allow dangerous populist

movements to come to power - namely the align-

ment of a dangerous leader, a critical mass of

susceptible followers, and an environment con-

ducive to their rise.

The toxic triangle shows that removing a toxic

leader alone will not solve the problem of dan

gerous populism. Instead all three sides of the

triangle need to be addressed. The most crucial

action needed is to address the conducive envi-

ronment which is allowing toxic leaders to win

elections. Today’s political circumstances con-

stitute an almost perfect storm of inequality,

insecurity, economic hardship, terrorist threats

and democratic decline. Under such circum-

stances many who would not normally vote for

toxic leaders decide to do so. Reducing inequal

ity and enforcing fairness in economics and

politics will go a long way to undermining sup-

port for the demagogues currently shaping

western politics.

Even as conditions improve, however, a sub

stantial number of people will continue to believe

that scapegoating and discrimination are accept-

able means of ordering society. This group’s

influence must be contained through the

enforcement of laws prohibiting discrimination

and hate speech. The laws that apply in civil soci-

ety in these areas must also be enforced on

social media and online.

Saving Democracy

It is for democrats to save democracy. The politi-

cians we elect must themselves be democrats

who believe in and uphold the fundamental pil-

lars of our democratic system. As citizens we too

must believe in those principles and accept

responsibility for those we elect. Which brings

us back to our own individual psychologies. As

Naomi Klein has said, democracy is not just the

right to vote, it is the right to live in dignity. To

preserve democracy we must demand not only

that our elected representatives facilitate the

dignity of all citizens, but that we also do so.

Dr Ian Hughes is completing a book 'Disordered

Minds: How Dangerous Personalities are

Destroying Democracy', based on six years of

research on the most dangerous political ﬁg

ures of the 20th century. He was lead author on

a previous book, 'Power to the People: Assess

ing Democracy in Ireland' (Tasc at New Island,

2007). disorderedworld.com

Dangerous populism differs from positive

populism as it blames not unjust systems, but

enemies – foreigners, Muslims, Mexicans – who

must go if the good old days are to be restored